Skip to main content
Glama

Sirenic

by eu.sirenic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Spanish company public procurement (PLACSP)

get_spanish_company_public_procurement
Read-only

Public-procurement record of a Spanish company from the Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público (Ministerio de Hacienda CODICE feeds: hosted profiles and aggregated regional platforms, archives since 2012, daily updates): contracts WON matched by legal-person NIF (attributions: buyer with DIR3, subject, CPV, lot, closed-list result such as awarded or formalised, award date, amounts in EUR excl. and incl. tax as published, tenders received, SME flag) and notices ISSUED as a buyer (avis_emis, public entities with a NIF); newest first, capped at 100 with tronque_*. Never a natural-person winner (DNI/NIE refused without charge) nor a consortium without its own NIF. Partial coverage: zero never means “never won a contract”; a NIF with no row answers 404 without charge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nifYesSpanish legal-person NIF: one letter (A-H, J, N, P-S, U-W), seven digits and a check character, e.g. A28582013 — DNI/NIE (natural persons) are refused
api_keyNoOptional Sirenic API key (srn_live_…) to pay with prepaid credits instead of x402 — no wallet needed. Get one at https://api.sirenic.eu/compte. Ignored when x_payment is provided (the signed payment wins). On insufficient balance the tool returns a credits error, not an x402 quote.
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive the payment quote.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoHow to settle the quote, present when payment_required is true.
quoteNoThe signable x402 payment requirements when payment_required is true: {x402Version, accepts[]} where each entry carries scheme, network, amount, asset and payTo (USDC and EURC options at the same numeric amount). Sign one entry and call again with `x_payment`.
resultatNoThe endpoint's JSON response when payment_required is false. Paid responses carry `source`, `disclaimer` and an Ed25519 signature, and every paid JSON response carries a `provenance` array (all tools since 2026-09-06) — one entry per block served, with the official register, licence, version, `as_of` date and `precision_as_of` (what that date means), plus the common per-block envelope: `etat` in a closed list (servi, absence_mesuree, absence_non_conclusive, partiel, perime, indisponible, sans_objet), `motif` when unavailable, `age_jours` (only for publication or ingestion dates), `couverture` (complete / partielle / non_mesurable with its measure) and `confiance` in bands (faible / moyenne / forte, only where a measure grounds it, never averaged across blocks). Read the states before the numbers: an absence_non_conclusive, indisponible or partiel block is never « nothing to report » — only absence_mesuree asserts an absence. Register codes: GET /v1/provenance/registres ; states, closed lists and reading rules: GET /v1/lecture (both free). The PDF tools carry no JSON envelope (the PDF report prints it).
payment_requiredYesTrue when this response is an x402 payment quote instead of data: settle one of the quote's `accepts` options and call the tool again with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds substantial operational detail: newest-first ordering, a 100-result cap with `tronque_*`, archives since 2012, daily updates, no-charge refusal of DNI/NIE, the difference between a zero result and a 404, and coverage limitations. No contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but efficiently organized: the core function and source are front-loaded, followed by structured data categories and operational caveats. Each clause carries necessary selection or invocation information, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it covers input constraints, data categories, ordering, pagination cap, coverage semantics, and non-charge error behavior. The presence of a full output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `nif`, `api_key`, and `x_payment`. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the NIF is a legal-person identifier matched against `attributions`, that DNI/NIE are refused, and that the result is capped with `tronque_*` fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the public-procurement record of a Spanish company from PLACSP, and distinguishes two data perspectives (contracts won as `attributions` and notices issued as a buyer as `avis_emis`). This is precise enough to separate it from sibling tools like get_french_company_public_procurement or get_eu_procurement_awards.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use context: it applies to Spanish legal persons with a NIF, excludes natural persons (DNI/NIE refused) and consortia without their own NIF, and warns about partial coverage. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so the 'vs alternatives' routing is implicit rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sirenic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources